phpLynx: Unexpected SEO benefit?

They were indexed because even those pages were made search engine friendly. like directory.psychlinks.ca/report/1453/Autism_Spectrum_Disorders.html
In this particular case I dont think it is a good idea to make them indexable because they are duplicating the details pages (+ a form), some of them prevent the details pages to get indexed.

 

I've already agreed with you and amended my robots.txt file. I've also pointed out that your observation further proves my original point - that the phpLynx directory structure is far more spider-friendly than it's competitors out of the box.

Look at your latest blog title: phpLD v3.3 Deep Links Mod - Easy 1 step install. If you were using phpLynx, you wouldn't need that mod.

 

I am not interested in comparing these scripts, you know I don't even use phpld.
I only said that making refer and report pages spider friendly does not necessarily mean the structure is better and I said why.

 

Why is it a good thing for any script to get pages indexed that you then have to turn around and manually exclude?

Shouldn't the script be focusing on the pages that have real content and getting them indexed and hopefully well-ranked rather than simply getting as many pages indexed as possible whether or not they have value to a visitor arriving via search engine?

 

Why are you even joining in the conversation if you have little or no interest in the comparison mhamdi? After all that is what the topic matter the OP wrote about. I find it hard to believe that anyone promoting phpld deeplink mod as you do doesn't have a vested interest in trying to discredit minstrels finding but I don't think you will in this case.

++++++++++++++++++++++

@YMC; Of course it's a good thing if a script out of the box get's indexed very well, the fact you can tame the beast is the important thing.

You should be worried if it is one of the following.

A. You get indexed for everything including spurious results but can't do anything about it and are lumbered with a million useless indexed pages.
B. You don't get indexed very well at all.

The fact that the phpLynx script fits into neither A or B speaks for itself don't you think? I know I'd rather have a million indexed pages and be able to prune them to the max like minstral appears to be doing any day of the week.

 

In all my posts in this thread I never mentioned neither scripts while staying on topic.
I promote the mod to get traffic to my blog and I don't care about phpld or phplynx. I am using another script that I believe is superior to both, I won't mention it, not to ruin your party here.
good luck with your ventures.

 

Thanks.

 

You don't have to manually exclude them. They don't do you any harm. I prefer to exclude them.

Let me provide another example: DP is using vBulletin forum software. My experience has been that out of the box vBulletin is far more spider-friendly than its competitors. Because I want to have my forum pages focused on the original threads, I disallow certain other pages, notably printer versions and archives, in my robots.txt file for the forums. That situation is exactly the same as what I am doing with phpLynx, as you can see in the following robots.txt file for a vBulletin forum:

User-agent: *
Disallow: /admincp/
Disallow: /archive/
Disallow: /announcement.php
Disallow: /calendar.php
Disallow: /cron.php
Disallow: /editpost.php
Disallow: /faq.php
Disallow: /joinrequests.php
Disallow: /login.php
Disallow: /member.php
Disallow: /misc.php
Disallow: /modcp/
Disallow: /moderator.php
Disallow: /newreply.php
Disallow: /newthread.php
Disallow: /online.php
Disallow: /printthread.php
Disallow: /private.php
Disallow: /profile.php
Disallow: /register.php
Disallow: /search.php
Disallow: /sendmessage.php
Disallow: /showgroups.php
Disallow: /showpost.php
Disallow: /subscription.php
Disallow: /subscriptions.php
Disallow: /threadrate.php
Disallow: /usercp.php

Code (markup):

It already does that. You seem to be unhappy because it does that better than whatever your favorite script-du-jour is.

I'm going into detail here to make a point for other people who may be reading this thread, not because I hope to "educate" you, YMC. It's pretty clear that you are here for the purpose of trolling.

 

Minstrel, my last question was made with my phpLynx directory, my eSyndicat directory, and two other CMS-type sites I own in mind. I had not considered before this thread how many pages are being indexed that may not have value for my visitors and may lead to issues with the search engines.

It just seems silly for the script to ensure pages get indexed that the site owner has to/should turn around and exclude to keep up their quality and brand.

I had little doubt that both you and Jamie would take it for an attack. I was actually interested in the answer since I do have a number of sites using CMS and directory scripts. In one breathe you say how great all these indexed pages are, then you then turn around and share which files and directories you are manually excluding. Seems like if it is good for your SEO and user-experience to exclude them then most likely the same would be true for everyone running that type of site. And if that's the case, it would seem the script should make it so you don't have to do that extra step - whether it's Lynx, phpLD, eSyndicat or any CMS.

 

You clearly don't get it and as I said earlier I frankly don't care about that part but for the benefit of others I'll repeat the answer for the third time:

1. prior to switching to phpLynx Pro in mid-January 2008, I had used eSyndicat Pro and before that phpLD "pro" for my three niche directories.

2. after switching to phpLynx, I noticed a very sudden surge in number of pages indexed (see post #1 in this thread in case you've forgotten)

3. nothing had changed other than the directory script - indeed, over the initial period in time under discussion I had not even added any new listings

4. when it was brought to my attention that some of the pages being indexed were duplicates, I took steps to disallow them in robots.txt - something I hadn't had the pleasure of needing to do with the previous two scripts since I couldn't even get all the primary pages indexed with those scripts - I pointed out that this is similar to my experience with vBulletin after switching to that forum software after using phpBB and then SMF, where again the exceptionally spider-friendly nature of the vBulletin URLs for the first time put me in a position where I wanted to limit spiders

5. I conclude from all this that something about phpLynx pages makes them unusually and extraordinarily spider-friendly in the realm of directory scripts (or at least the three I have experience with)

6. the fact that I am now excluding certain pages from indexing does not alter the conclusion in #5 one iota

This is not rocket science, YMC. For the life of me, I cannot understand why you're having such difficulty comprehending it.

 

Again, I am just discussing the seo benefit regardless of the script...
The /report/pages get indexed and prevent the real detail page from being indexed.
Example:
Detail page not indexed
Report Page indexed

The url rewriting of the report/refer pages balloons the number of indexed pages but not only uses the server resources (rewriting) it also prevents the real info page from being indexed. no real benefit in this case imho.

 

Uh... that's what Google does with duplicate content - indexes one page and not any duplicates - and that's why, when it matters, you disallow the pages you don't want indexed.

Just like vBulletin - see above.

And it doesn't alter the fact that more pages are indexed with phpLynx than were ever indexed with phpLD or eSyndicat.

 

Will you stop trying to pick a fight please, your not going to get one. I blame nothing on anything, READ MY POST. I said I did not know whether the pages you commented on were in place before minstrel bought our script so we don't know if they were pre-indexed before or after.

You are seriously losing the plot here. What are you trying to say? Don't get indexed? The idea is to get indexed as much as possible and then AFTER you have gained success in this you can prune the results via a robots.txt. If you haven't grasped the benefits of this concept I suggest you take up another career.

Now that's the fourth time I've tried to explain this to you and it is clear you are either stupid or deliberately spoiling for a fight which isn't going to happen.

If you have nothing better to offer this thread I'd politely ask that you refrain from posting here as it appears you have nothing beneficial to contribute.

Thanks

 

I have nothing to add here (other than those pages urls belong to your script, only script where pages that should not be indexed, get url rewritten to make them sef). weird discussions here when someone is only interested in promoting his script or directory the other one is trolling.

 

You never added anything from the start, and yes, you are the one trolling, so goodbye and good luck nonetheless, I certainly don't hold your ignorance against you, we;re all here to learn, some take longer than others, that's if they even have that intention.

I took the liberty of looking at your own homepage mhamdi, (you use esyndicat) what a co-incidence as so does YMC

That isn't the one you were on about is it? Never mind hopefully the time you've wasted here you can work on getting that populated and indexed better.

 

Whether you choose to believe me or not, I don't really care. My only agenda here is to make sure I understand how the scripts that run my Lynx, eSyndicat and other CMS-driven sites get pages indexed and whether or not there are things I should do to keep from running afoul of G and the other search engines.

I have never claimed to know everything and I participate in this forum to both share what I do know and learn from others. Learning from others does not mean that just because someone says something it is fact. I would suspect most directory owners here have taken the advice they found helpful and did their own thing in other areas.

Calling people names and implying that they have some sort of hidden agenda does not do much to get your points across. All that does is make you and the script you so vocally champion look desperate.

Funny Jamie how when I was questioning the eSyndicat and phpLD scripts as a member of the phpLynx "staff"; Simon, David and the others never threatened me with legal action or questioned if I was in collusion with any other members here. Yet, when I ask honest questions that may or may not be complimentary to the script I was once involved with, I am now threatened and called names.

None of the major directory scripts are without faults. All of the directory scripts have things the others don't. There are also many things they do the same. I have never made it a secret that I have a directory running on eSyndicat and another using your script.

I own two directories that are using two different scripts. If one is handling things a certain way, there is every reason to explore if both are doing so and whether or not that's a good thing.

You and Minstrel see this particular issue one way and I and mhamdi (and others) see it differently. Minstrel is right, I do not understand why the way his site and mine are being indexed is a good thing. I think Anon's comment about it being spammy is perhaps the most accurate name for it.

I don't give two figs if you or Minstrel like it or not. If you want to make claims and not have them questioned or discussed, I suggest you stick to making them in the Lynx forums. Make them here and people will want to discuss them, regardless of which script is being discussed.

In the long run, all I am doing the same thing you both are trying to do - protect my investment.

 

I don't have a problem with that. The problem I have is that everything you are saying supports my original observation, viz. that phpLynx scripts are being spidered far more readily and aggressively than either eSyndicat or phpLD scripts. For reasons that escape me, you seem to have difficulty understanding that. I gave you the similar example of vBulletin versus phpBB or SMF - either you didn't understand that either or you're choosing to ignore it.

And by the way, I'm not Jamie and I'm not blindly supporting any of his statements in this thread or any other. My opinions are as I have stated, not what anyone else may state.